Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
It basically was the same with most of the decisions in the trilogy too though.
Remember how you could choose not to put Udina on the council in ME1? Well, all that changed is being able to talk to councilor Anderson in ME2, where he was completely unimportant just to give Udina his spot on the council before ME3 when it would actually matter?
Or how you could choose to get Ashley or Kaidan killed but they both got put in the same role after ME1 so it actually didn't really matter which one of them survived? (except of course when you like one over the other)
Or how you could choose if you let cerberus have the collector base in ME2 but in ME3 the only effect it had was changing minor dialogue and a number in the war assets?
Killing the "last" rachni queen in ME1 just for the "truly last" Rachni queen to appear in ME3?
Most (not all) decisions in the mass effect trilogy were "cosmetic" or nostalgia bait ("oh yeah, I remember that from ME1!!") at best. And that's not a bad thing, but saying that the trilogy's strongest points were decisions is just dishonest. Sure, it had decisions, but the games never really did anything big with them, except the reunification of the quarians and geth.
I agree with everything else you said though. Andromeda deservers criticism, but there's no need to lift the trilogy in a higher spot than it already is :)
No of course, by an unexpected sleight of hands the delay is absorbed.
... except may be players can have the feeling authors thinks we are an band of m.orrons. It sometime also break credibility (exemple above) and, in some extend, immersion.
No, I disagree. It's already hard to program different paths in one game, but Mass Effect is a whole trilogy. If every choice would have a huge effect, you'd have to program so many paths that it'll be hard to keep up with.
Imagine ME3 without Rachni enemies (and without that side mission with Grunt) because you killed the Rachni queen in ME1.
Imagine ME3 if Cerberus wouldn't have had the collector base and wouldn't have gotten indoctrinated by the reapers.
Imagine ME3 if only Ashley gets knocked out by the robot but not Kaidan, then Kaidan wouldn't be on the citadel during the cerberus coup and wouldn't be able to protect the council.
And so on and so on.
Of course, it'd be feasible with a huge team and a lot of time, but it's not reasonable from the pov of a developer. As much as I'd like that as a player
It is why bioware shouldnt had made untenable promizes. That s what I call take people for fools.
May be you can compare ME3 failure, where such mecanics had not been well managed, with Witcher 3 where it caused no problems.
They did an acceptable job in some areas. Conrad Verner (of all characters) stands out for example. Bumping into him on Illium and the Citadel across 3 games gives you substantive rewards in the form of Paragon/Renegade points and whatever they call karma in Mass Effect 3. The rewards could have been better of course, but whatever.
It works because Conrad is just a sideshow with minimal integration into the wider narrative however.
Things don't fall apart until they try making entire acts of the story about previous Shepherd decisions. The rachni queen is a perfect example. As a writer, what do you do when a major plot point is potentially missing because Shepherd killed her in the first game? Well, you have to replace her. Obviously. But how do you do that in such a way that you're not robbing the player of their sense of impact on the narrative by making previous decisions wholly meaningless? You simply can't.
The tragedy of it is that it was wholly unnecessary. Had the rachni simply showed up in the final cinematic fleet battle and spearheaded the assault on the reapers, I would have felt well-rewarded for saving their queen in the first game. "Now we add our voice to yours! Sing of the reapers' deaths! Sing of victory! Sing! Sing!" (cut to reapers melting under sustained zerg attacks)
Not that obvious. If you kill her, she dont appears later, you have one less mission at ME3 and a lowest overall war score. It lead however to an other problems. People may think there is good and bad decisions, and because there is an interrest to choose something rather than the inverse it can lead to a more linear game. Otherwise, but it is only my opinion, I have not problem with fact killing the rachni queen at ME1 lead to an ''amputed'' game at ME3. Decisions here have real impact.
IIRC geths too, dont appear in final cinematic fleet battle, even you saved them, alone or with the Quarians.
For Quarians I dont remember.
For Shepard, it is obvious to me it cant come back at ME4. It was an enough complicated situation for a trilogy, it could only had been a nightmare with a quadrilogy. Killing him is however not necessary (except for drama). You just have to start a new game a century later ... and impose a canon/normalised end ... A thing that can be do easilly only if this end is consensual. Here is the licence issue.
Yes, thank you, that's what I meant.
The Mass Effect Trilogy gives you choices, but it doesn't let you feel the effects in a meaningful way. And I think in that way, it's not too different from ME Andromeda.
In fact, iirc, there was one decision in MEA, where you had to decide between saving some Krogans or saving Salarians and if you saved the salarians, you semi-regularly encountered enemy Krogan mini-boss enemies. However, if you save the Krogan, those enemies don't appear in the game afterwards.
If there's one thing I would praise MEA for, it's that one single decision, because on hardest difficulty, those enemies were really annoying and you felt the effect of your story related decision through gameplay.
Idk, what meaningful way you need. Half of Mass Effect trilogy is dialogs, and almost all your decisions will change dialogues through the series + news/extra quests.
If you play each time as full paragon or full renegade completionist with minor difference in decisions, saving everybody in sucide mission, obviously there wont be big difference. Try speedrunning the game in non-competionist way, without maxed reputation (so you'll be forced into neutral, not red/blue decisions) and you'll see staggering difference.
You can blame ME3 that it botched story in many ways and I will fully agree with that. But saying there are no consequences is wrong.
Until ME4 release.
There is a reason why Andromeda followed ME3 instead of an ME4. Waiting a few more years will not change the equation, at least for me.
It contributes nothing of substance to the actual game. And speaking for myself here: these kinds of things end up being more of a detriment than anything else. It's big galaxy but such a small, small world, crammed full of people you've already met, while its current events and recent history are wholly dominated by your own experiences.
You really won't. No. that's the whole point we're trying to make.
Each Mass Effect installment has to stand on its own as a game, right? You can't lock whole chapters of content behind a paywall of the previous title or two. New players must get an experience as rich and rewarding as those who are returning. So how do you marry this concept of "your past decisions matter" with a whole new game?
BioWare chose the "have your cake and eat it too" route. They ended up serving a plate of amorphous mud, where every single decision was ultimately retractable and every perishable character was simply replaceable. Chose Anderson to sit on the Council? Too bad, we'd rather he was on Earth as an admiral now. Got Garrus killed in the suicide mission of Mass Effect 2? Meet James Vega! He does everything Garrus would have done, only worse. Did Ashley kill Wrex on Virmire? No problem! Here's his brother Wreav!
So on and so forth.
There are no meaningful consequences.
I"m afraid you might be right. I hope gaming as a whole starts improving! They need to pay people like you and other players for advice and take heed to the advice.
For example, James Vega exists regardless of Garrus' abscense and with losing Garrus in ME 2 you will not get a sufficient replacement with all the assosiated dialogue and content.
Same with Wrex, although to a lesser degree and the difference is mostly in tone.
And not to mention that peace treaty between Quarians and Geth is only possible if you made right decisions in ME 2.